Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Big Brother / Microchipping / Problem-Reaction-Solution

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-10-2014, 05:54 PM   #21
vagrant
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,673
Likes: 54 (34 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dentedarthur View Post
It can't be Orwellian, he died in 1950
He wrote a fictional novel in 1948
It isn't real


so its Snowellian.



.
vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2014, 07:07 PM   #22
billylaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 368
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by metak88 View Post
C'mon... at least run a quick search before you post... you did the same thing with that 'Windows 10 technical preview' thread that I posted a day before...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=283251
What? what was wrong with Windows 10 technical preview topic? and what's wrong with this time? please elaborate
billylaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2014, 07:09 PM   #23
billylaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 368
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by metak88 View Post
C'mon... at least run a quick search before you post... you did the same thing with that 'Windows 10 technical preview' thread that I posted a day before...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=283251
the link you mentioned is old and I know it was posted before but the one I posted is new and from an interview. Snowden said about Db, google and fb 2 days ago. Thanks
billylaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2014, 07:12 PM   #24
madhubala
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 341
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I have already stopped using facebook. Never used Dropbox. It is hard to get rid of Google.
madhubala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2014, 07:48 PM   #25
metak88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,187
Likes: 232 (150 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billylaw View Post
What? what was wrong with Windows 10 technical preview topic? and what's wrong with this time? please elaborate
I posted about it four days before that... lol

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=282734

Quote:
Originally Posted by billylaw View Post
the link you mentioned is old and I know it was posted before but the one I posted is new and from an interview. Snowden said about Db, google and fb 2 days ago. Thanks
There's really no need to start a new thread for every little thing...
__________________
In rehab...
metak88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2014, 08:42 PM   #26
tsuntsu
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,176
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritchs View Post
Thanks much for that, its really important that people know this stuff is real, they are really cracking down on free speech and free privacy to view things on the internet. Its truly Orwellian now, make no mistake
Yes it is... what is even more Orwellian is the predicted reactions by the masses. Orwell predicted that man is reduced to cattle and sheep, bleeting their support for the very institution feeding off them.... I actually like combining Orwell's 1984 with Huxleys "Brave New World"... 1984 of course shows us the lies and deceptions of the powers that be, and the brainwashing we follow leading to our own slavery and destruction... Brave new world details the power of the pharmaceutical corporate powers and their ability to turn us into happy oblivious zombies.
tsuntsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2014, 08:49 PM   #27
tsuntsu
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,176
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dentedarthur View Post
It can't be Orwellian, he died in 1950
He wrote a fictional novel in 1948
It isn't real
and there is no such thing as jeffersonian views on the US constitution right? .. in other words i dont understand your point, because some things are orwellian just as some views are jeffersonian lol

Orwell was putting something out there that he discovered from certain circles he hung with, which he apparently wanted to fight against through revelation of the truths he found.... Huxley put out something he seemed to be proud of and part of. "1984" and "Brave new world" reveal a plan.

Last edited by tsuntsu; 13-10-2014 at 08:50 PM.
tsuntsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2014, 10:08 PM   #28
dentedarthur
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 10,983
Likes: 21 (21 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsuntsu View Post
and there is no such thing as jeffersonian views on the US constitution right? .. in other words i dont understand your point, because some things are orwellian just as some views are jeffersonian lol

Orwell was putting something out there that he discovered from certain circles he hung with, which he apparently wanted to fight against through revelation of the truths he found.... Huxley put out something he seemed to be proud of and part of. "1984" and "Brave new world" reveal a plan.
Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the United states
Eric Blair was a novelist, essayist, journalist and critic

The former wrote the Declaration of Independence
The latter, a novel
dentedarthur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2014, 11:25 PM   #29
tsuntsu
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,176
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dentedarthur View Post
Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the United states
Eric Blair was a novelist, essayist, journalist and critic

The former wrote the Declaration of Independence
The latter, a novel
Orwell was more than a novelist. He was a man on the inside who found the truth to be a very ugly all consuming beast. He was the Ed Snowden of his day, only one who found alternate means of releasing this information, allowing him to live fairly unmolested. He may have written a novel but it was still a release and revelation of the truth to the masses.

Quote:
"The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it"
- George Orwell
tsuntsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2014, 12:17 AM   #30
dentedarthur
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 10,983
Likes: 21 (21 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsuntsu View Post
Orwell was more than a novelist. He was a man on the inside who found the truth to be a very ugly all consuming beast. He was the Ed Snowden of his day, only one who found alternate means of releasing this information, allowing him to live fairly unmolested. He may have written a novel but it was still a release and revelation of the truth to the masses.
His essays are certainly worth reading
50 of them are available from project Gutenberg
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html

In particular Decline of the English murder
And raffles and miss blandish

Oh, and THE LION AND THE UNICORN: SOCIALISM AND THE ENGLISH GENIUS (1941)

Last edited by dentedarthur; 14-10-2014 at 12:24 AM.
dentedarthur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2014, 12:23 AM   #31
elshaper
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,965
Likes: 5,575 (3,762 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dentedarthur View Post
Not using Google is a bit of an ask
Especially as they're innovating solutions to so many problems
http://youtu.be/cRTNvWcx9Oo
You do stick out like a sore thumb I must say.
No subtlety.
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2014, 12:28 AM   #32
dentedarthur
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 10,983
Likes: 21 (21 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elshaper View Post
You do stick out like a sore thumb I must say.
No subtlety.
Subtlety?
Had to google it
dentedarthur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2014, 06:26 AM   #33
tsuntsu
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,176
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dentedarthur View Post
His essays are certainly worth reading
50 of them are available from project Gutenberg
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html

In particular Decline of the English murder
And raffles and miss blandish

Oh, and THE LION AND THE UNICORN: SOCIALISM AND THE ENGLISH GENIUS (1941)
Yeah he wrote some great stuff... remarkable observations. Here are a few excerpts mostly from Socialism and the english genius... awesome stuff:

Quote:
George Orwell:

...The liberty of the individual is still believed in, almost as in the nineteenth century. But this has nothing to do with economic liberty, the right to exploit others for profit. It is the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above. The most hateful of all names in an English ear is Nosey Parker. It is obvious, of course, that even this purely private liberty is a lost cause. Like all other modern people, the English are in process of being numbered, labelled, conscripted, 'co-ordinated'.

...The reason why the English anti-militarism disgusts foreign observers is that it ignores the existence of the British Empire. It looks like sheer hypocrisy. After all, the English have absorbed a quarter of the earth and held on to it by means of a huge navy. How dare they then turn round and say that war is wicked?

It is quite true that the English are hypocritical about their Empire. In the working class this hypocrisy takes the form of not knowing that the Empire exists. But their dislike of standing armies is a perfectly sound instinct.

...And yet the gentleness of English civilization is mixed up with barbarities and anachronisms. Our criminal law is as out-of-date as the muskets in the Tower. Over against the Nazi Storm Trooper you have got to set that typically English figure, the hanging judge, some gouty old bully with his mind rooted in the nineteenth century, handing out savage sentences. In England people are still hanged by the neck and flogged with the cat o' nine tails. Both of these punishments are obscene as well as cruel, but there has never been any genuinely popular outcry against them. People accept them (and Dartmoor, and Borstal) almost as they accept the weather. They are part of 'the law', which is assumed to be unalterable.

Here one comes upon an all-important English trait: the respect for constitutionalism and legality, the belief in 'the law' as something above the State and above the individual, something which is cruel and stupid, of course, but at any rate INCORRUPTIBLE.

It is not that anyone imagines the law to be just. Everyone knows that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. But no one accepts the implications of this, everyone takes it for granted that the law, such as it is, will be respected, and feels a sense of outrage when it is not. Remarks like 'They can't run me in; I haven't done anything wrong', or 'They can't do that; it's against the law', are part of the atmosphere of England. The professed enemies of society have this feeling as strongly as anyone else. One sees it in prison-books like Wilfred Macartney's WALLS HAVE MOUTHS or Jim Phelan's JAIL JOURNEY, in the solemn idiocies that take place at the trials of conscientious objectors, in letters to the papers from eminent Marxist professors, pointing out that this or that is a 'miscarriage of British justice'. Everyone believes in his heart that the law can be, ought to be, and, on the whole, will be impartially administered. The totalitarian idea that there is no such thing as law, there is only power, has never taken root. Even the intelligentsia have only accepted it in theory.

An illusion can become a half-truth, a mask can alter the expression of a face. The familiar arguments to the effect that democracy is 'just the same as' or 'just as bad as' totalitarianism never take account of this fact. All such arguments boil down to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are very powerful illusions. The belief in them influences conduct, national life is different because of them. In proof of which, look about you. Where are the rubber truncheons, where is the castor oil? The sword is still in the scabbard, and while it stays there corruption cannot go beyond a certain point. The English electoral system, for instance, is an all but open fraud. In a dozen obvious ways it is gerrymandered in the interest of the moneyed class.

...The underlying fact was that the whole position of the moneyed class had long ceased to be justifiable. There they sat, at the centre of a vast empire and a world-wide financial network, drawing interest and profits and spending them–on what? It was fair to say that life within the British Empire was in many ways better than life outside it. Still, the Empire was underdeveloped, India slept in the Middle Ages, the Dominions lay empty, with foreigners jealously barred out, and even England was full of slums and unemployment. Only half a million people, the people in the country houses, definitely benefited from the existing system. Moreover, the tendency of small businesses to merge together into large ones robbed more and more of the moneyed class of their function and turned them into mere owners, their work being done for them by salaried managers and technicians. For long past there had been in England an entirely functionless class, living on money that was invested they hardly knew where, the 'idle rich', the people whose photographs you can look at in the TATLER and the BYSTANDER, always supposing that you want to. The existence of these people was by any standard unjustifiable. They were simply parasites, less useful to society than his fleas are to a dog.

By 1920 there were many people who were aware of all this. By 1930 millions were aware of it. But the British ruling class obviously could not admit to themselves that their usefulness was at an end. Had they done that they would have had to abdicate. For it was not possible for them to turn themselves into mere bandits, like the American millionaires, consciously clinging to unjust privileges and beating down opposition by bribery and tear-gas bombs. After all, they belonged to a class with a certain tradition, they had been to public schools where the duty of dying for your country, if necessary, is laid down as the first and greatest of the Commandments. They had to FEEL themselves true patriots, even while they plundered their countrymen. Clearly there was only one escape for them–into stupidity. They could keep society in its existing shape only by being UNABLE to grasp that any improvement was possible. Difficult though this was, they achieved it, largely by fixing their eyes on the past and refusing to notice the changes that were going on round them.

...During the past twenty years the negative, FAINÉANT outlook which has been fashionable among English left-wingers, the sniggering of the intellectuals at patriotism and physical courage, the persistent effort to chip away English morale and spread a hedonistic, what-do-I-get-out-of-it attitude to life, has done nothing but harm.
tsuntsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2014, 09:56 PM   #34
tsuntsu
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,176
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

This too is very much worth reading. Orwell writes regarding "writers, writing, and political realities". He was very much ahead of his time and had the advantage of being on the "inside" from which he developed his thoughts:


Quote:
The position of the writer in an age of State control is a subject that has already been fairly largely discussed, although most of the evidence that might be relevant is not yet available. In this place I do not want to express an opinion either for or against State patronage of the arts, but merely to point out that WHAT KIND of State rules over us must depend partly on the prevailing intellectual atmosphere: meaning, in this context, partly on the attitude of writers and artists themselves, and on their willingness or otherwise to keep the spirit of liberalism alive.

...This is a political age. War, Fascism, concentration camps, rubber truncheons, atomic bombs, etc are what we daily think about, and therefore to a great extent what we write about, even when we do not name them openly. We cannot help this. When you are on a sinking ship, your thoughts will be about sinking ships.

... But not only is our subject-matter narrowed, but our whole attitude towards literature is coloured by loyalties which we at least intermittently realise to be non-literary. I often have the feeling that even at the best of times literary criticism is fraudulent, since in the absence of any accepted standards whatever–any EXTERNAL reference which can give meaning to the statement that such and such a book is "good" or "bad"–every literary judgement consists in trumping up a set of rules to justify an instinctive preference. One's real reaction to a book, when one has a reaction at all, is usually "I like this book" or "I don't like it", and what follows is a rationalisation. But "I like this book" is not, I think, a non-literary reaction; the non-literary reaction is "This book is on my side, and therefore I must discover merits in it". Of course, when one praises a book for political reasons one may be emotionally sincere, in the sense that one does feel strong approval of it, but also it often happens that party solidarity demands a plain lie. Anyone used to reviewing books for political periodicals is well aware of this. In general, if you are writing for a paper that you are in agreement with, you sin by commission, and if for a paper of the opposite stamp, by omission. At any rate, innumerable controversial books-books for or against Soviet Russia, for or against Zionism, for or against the Catholic Church, etc–are judged before they are read, and in effect before they are written. One knows in advance what reception they will get in what papers. And yet, with a dishonesty that sometimes is not even quarter-conscious, the pretence is kept up that genuinely literary standards are being applied.

...Of course, the invasion of literature by politics was bound to happen. It must have happened, even if the special problem of totalitarianism had never arisen, because we have developed a sort of compunction which our grandparents did not have, an awareness of the enormous injustice and misery of the world, and a guilt-stricken feeling that one ought to be doing something about it, which makes a purely aesthetic attitude towards life impossible.

... No one, so far as I know, ever describes himself as a "bourgeois", just as no one literate enough to have heard the word ever admits to being guilty of antisemitism. We are all of us good democrats, anti-Fascist, anti-imperialist, contemptuous of class distinctions, impervious to colour prejudice, and so on and so forth.

...Moreover, the Left had inherited from Liberalism certain distinctly questionable beliefs, such as the belief that the truth will prevail and persecution defeats itself, or that man is naturally good and is only corrupted by his environment.

...Ever since the nineteenth century our national income, dependent partly on interest from foreign investments, and on assured markets and cheap raw materials in colonial countries, had been extremely precarious. It was certain that, sooner or later, something would go wrong and we should be forced to make our exports balance our imports: and when that happened the British standard of living, including the working-class standard, was bound to fall, at least temporarily. Yet the left-wing parties, even when they were vociferously anti-imperialist, never made these facts clear. On occasion they were ready to admit that the British workers had benefited, to some extent, by the looting of Asia and Africa, but they always allowed it to appear that we could give up our loot and yet in some way contrive to remain prosperous. Quite largely, indeed, the workers were won over to Socialism by being told that they were exploited, whereas the brute truth was that, in world terms, they were exploiters. Now, to all appearances, the point has been reached when the working-class living-standard CANNOT be maintained, let alone raised. Even if we squeeze the rich out of existence, the mass of the people must either consume less or produce more. Or am I exaggerating the mess we are in? I may be, and I should be glad to find myself mistaken. But the point I wish to make is that this question, among people who are faithful to the Left ideology, cannot be genuinely discussed. The lowering of wages and raising of working hours are felt to be inherently anti-Socialist measures, and must therefore be dismissed in advance, whatever the economic situation may be. To suggest that they may be unavoidable is merely to risk being plastered with those labels that we are all terrified of. It is far safer to evade the issue and pretend that we can put everything right by redistributing the existing national income.

To accept an orthodoxy is always to inherit unresolved contradictions. Take for instance the fact that all sensitive people are revolted by industrialism and its products, and yet are aware that the conquest of poverty and the emancipation of the working class demand not less industrialisation, but more and more. Or take the fact that certain jobs are absolutely necessary and yet are never done except under some kind of coercion. Or take the fact that it is impossible to have a positive foreign policy without having powerful armed forces. One could multiply examples. In every such case there is a conclusion which is perfectly plain but which can only be drawn if one is privately disloyal to the official ideology. The normal response is to push the question, unanswered, into a corner of one's mind, and then continue repeating contradictory catchwords. One does not have to search far through the reviews and magazines to discover the effects of this kind of thinking.

I am not, of course, suggesting that mental dishonesty is peculiar to Socialists and left-wingers generally, or is commonest among them. It is merely that acceptance of ANY political discipline seems to be incompatible with literary integrity. This applies equally to movements like Pacifism and Personalism, which claim to be outside the ordinary political struggle. Indeed, the mere sound of words ending in '-ism' seems to bring with it the smell of propaganda. Group loyalties are necessary, and yet they are poisonous to literature, so long as literature is the product of individuals. As soon as they are allowed to have any influence, even a negative one, on creative writing, the result is not only falsification, but often the actual drying-up of the inventive faculties.

Well, then what? Do we have to conclude that it is the duty of every writer to "keep out of politics"? Certainly not! In any case, as I have said already, no thinking person can or does genuinely keep out of politics, in an age like the present one.

...When a writer engages in politics he should do so as a citizen, as a human being, but not AS A WRITER. I do not think that he has the right, merely on the score of his sensibilities, to shirk the ordinary dirty work of politics. Just as much as anyone else, he should be prepared to deliver lectures in draughty halls, to chalk pavements, to canvass voters, to distribute leaflets, even to fight in civil wars if it seems necessary. But whatever else he does in the service of his party, he should never write for it. He should make it clear that his writing is a thing apart. And he should be able to act co-operatively while, if he chooses, completely rejecting the official ideology. He should never turn back from a train of thought because it may lead to a heresy, and he should not mind very much if his unorthodoxy is smelt out, as it probably will be.

... It is reasonable, for example, to be willing to fight in a war because one thinks the war ought to be won, and at the same time to refuse to write war propaganda. Sometimes, if a writer is honest, his writings and his political activities may actually contradict one another.

...To suggest that a creative writer, in a time of conflict, must split his life into two compartments, may seem defeatist or frivolous: yet in practice I do not see what else he can do. To lock yourself up in an ivory tower is impossible and undesirable. To yield subjectively, not merely to a party machine, but even to a group ideology, is to destroy yourself as a writer. We feel this dilemma to be a painful one, because we see the need of engaging in politics while also seeing what a dirty, degrading business it is. And most of us still have a lingering belief that every choice, even every political choice, is between good and evil, and that if a thing is necessary it is also right. We should, I think, get rid of this belief, which belongs to the nursery. In politics one can never do more than decide which of two evils is the lesser, and there are some situations from which one can only escape by acting like a devil or a lunatic. War, for example, may be necessary, but it is certainly not right or sane. Even a General Election is not exactly a pleasant or edifying spectacle. If you have to take part in such things–and I think you do have to, unless you are armoured by old age or stupidity or hypocrisy–then you also have to keep part of yourself inviolate.
tsuntsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
dropbox, edward snowden, facebook, nsa, surveillance

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.